People v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 22 November 1993
• Citation: 605 N.Y.S.2d 906,198 A.D.2d 452
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daniel ROBERTS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 906

605 N.Y.S.2d 906

198 A.D.2d 452

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Daniel ROBERTS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nov. 22, 1993.

Peter Branti, Jr., New City (Clare McCue Cincotta, of counsel; Edward Lussen, on the brief), for appellant.

Kenneth Gribetz, Dist. Atty., New City (Deborah Wolikow Loewenberg, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered July 1, 1992, convicting him of escape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's speculative claims regarding possible bias which may have resulted from preindictment publicity surrounding the case are not jurisdictional in nature and thus were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see, People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1, 489 N.Y.S.2d 152, 478 N.E.2d 755; People v. Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 448 N.Y.S.2d 448, 433 N.E.2d 513; People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171; People v. Nelson, 173 A.D.2d 205, 569 N.Y.S.2d 86; People v. Martin, 145 A.D.2d 440, 535 N.Y.S.2d 977; People v. Bowen, 122 A.D.2d 64, 504 N.Y.S.2d 480). In any event, the defendant has failed to make the requisite preliminary showing that he suffered actual prejudice due to media coverage ( see, United States v. Burke, 700 F.2d 70, cert. denied 464 U.S. 816, 104 S.Ct. 72, 78 L.Ed.2d 85; United States v. Myers, 510 F.Supp. 323; United States v. Mandel, 415 F.Supp. 1033; People v. King, 48 A.D.2d 457, 370 N.Y.S.2d 52; People v. Hussein, 150 Misc.2d 119, 568 N.Y.S.2d 296), and our in camera review of the Grand Jury minutes reveals that the grand jurors were appropriately instructed on this issue and that no evidence of bias existed.

SULLIVAN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, O'BRIEN and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.